Of course Salvation doesn't, -- no one is that ignorant. The relevance of Latin is that the English form, "full of grace" originates from Jerome's "gratia plena"; "κεχαριτωμενη" could indeed be translated by some other idiom related to the fullness, or possession, of grace as the Greek past participle does not have a direct grammatical parallel. St. Jerome found a simple way to translate it.
The point about Wycliffe's translation is that no Catholic would take it seriously, which explains why to Salvation and to most Catholics Douay is the first credible and professional English translation.
Eph 1:6
That would be "εχαριτωσεν", "graced", -- not the same neologism that St. Luke used to describe Mary. Obviously, derivatives of the word "χαρις" are plentiful, yet this particular one is unique. Surely nothing justifies the sleazy Protestant "highly favored".
tell us how Gregory and popes speaking infallibly (and i understand the criteria for such) are inspired by the Holy Ghost, so that God is the author of these infallible statements, if He is, and how this "dictation" is different from the Divine inspiration of Scripture.
The Holy Catholic Church generally is under the leadership of the Holy Ghost, not just popes, -- but of course not every time a prelate of the Church says something. However, when a doctor of the Church speaks on matters of faith and morals, his words are inspired by God.
the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you (John 14:26).
What sets the Holy Scripture apart from other teaching of the Magisterium is not that the Holy Scripture is the only inspired text, but that it is canonized by the Church to be inerrant and relate directly to the historical events surrounding Christ.
Infallibility of the Pope is different from both inspiration and canonicity as it pertains to the Pope's authority to settle disputes even among the bishops when the consensus is lacking.
Finally, it is a useful idiom do say instead of "inspired", "dictated by the Holy Ghost", but I am only aware of the expression used ex cathedra in Providentissimus Deus:
all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy GhostLeo XIII on the inerrancy of scripture (from Providentissimus Deus) [ecum.].
you do not even have a list of all infallible teachings
Of course not. This is akin to telling us when Christ will come again: not useful knowledge. Whether formally and canonically binding as dogma or not, any uttering of the Magisterium is to be met with serious attention, and if formulated as definitive, with obedience. You exhibit the typical Protestant legalistic thinking that confuses the Holy Church with a police station.
Rome really believes is
Ask, and you will learn.
Not ignorant to believe but perhaps as to what words can convey, but i provided the second option which she should have argued for if it was.
Surely nothing justifies the sleazy Protestant "highly favored".
They both simply use charitoō, and your opinion is just that, which also should make you even more opposed to the NABRE : "And coming to her, he said, “Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you." Also here and here .
And the Jerusalem Bible : "He went in and said to her, 'Rejoice, you who enjoy God's favour! The Lord is with you.'" These are read far more than the Vulgate or the DRB.
In addition, an apologist with a bit more weight than you (Jimmy Akin states in response to a questioner:
I was watching EWTN earlier and it was mentioned that only two people in the New Testament are referred to as “full of grace” – Jesus (John 1:14) and Mary (Luke 1:28). Of course I thought this would be a really neat thing to mention to my Protestant friends (especially if we’re talking about Jesus and Mary being the New Adam and New Eve).
BUT I wanted to go beyond the English and examine the original Greek – but I don’t know a lot about Greek! So I have two twofold questions:
(1) does John 1:14 use kecharitomene as fully (pardon the pun) as Luke’s usage in 1:28 or does John 1:14 follow more closely to Acts 6:8 when Stephen is referred to as “full of grace and power”?
John 1:14 says that Jesus was plErEs charitos, which literally means "full of grace." (Those capital Es arepresent etas, so pronounce them like the e in "they"; the word is thus pronounced PLAY-RACE).
Luke 1:28 uses kecharitomene, which literally means "one who has been graced" or "woman who has been graced" (since the gender is female). It doesn't literally mean "full of grace," though that is defensible as a free translation.
Acts 6:8 refers to Stephen as plErEs charitos, so again it's literally "full of grace" and just the same as the description used of Jesus in John 1:14.
If it is the latter, (2) does that mean there really isn’t a literal “full of grace” parallel between Luke 1:28 and John 1:14 or can I find that literal parallel somewhere else in the New Testament?
Not that I'm aware of, and I'd almost certainly be aware of it if there were.
Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch Luke in the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible affirm "graced," and use it to justify their theological interpretation: The Gospel of Luke could have described her with the words full of grace (Gk. pleres charitos) as he did of Stephen in Acts 6:8, yet here he uses a different expression (Gk. kecharitomene) that is even more revealing than the traditional rendering. . It indicates that God has already "graced" Mary previous to this point, making her a vessel who "has been" and "is now" filled with divine life.- http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=11460004&postcount=3
And she was, but it is the excess extrapolative attributions that go far above and beyond what is written that is the issue.
when a doctor of the Church speaks on matters of faith and morals, his words are inspired by God..What sets the Holy Scripture apart from other teaching of the Magisterium is not that the Holy Scripture is the only inspired text, but that it is canonized by the Church to be inerrant and relate directly to the historical events surrounding Christ.
You also said in your next post,
The canonicity of scripture means that this is a material (1) directly related to the historical events surrounding Jesus Christ; (2) written by an apostle or a person equally connected to the person of Christ; (3) is inerrant; (4) was used in the Holy Liturgy of the Early Church.
Thus I see no distinction being made btwn the manner and level of Divine inspiration, but what sets them apart is its canoncity, content, authorship, inerrancy, use used in early Holy Liturgy, unless docs and prelates speaking on matters of faith and morals can be Divinely inspired and yet make errors.
What if any distinction do you see are regards any type and level of Divine inspiration of Scripture, and doctors and prelates of the church of Rome? And can you specify who some of these are if not popes, and the works you hold as being Divinely inspired (and thus binding i would assume)?
Infallibility of the Pope is different from both inspiration and canonicity as it pertains to the Pope's authority to settle disputes even among the bishops when the consensus is lacking.
But all you state is a functional difference, not any theological distinction btwn any type and level of Divine inspiration of Scripture and infallible statements, while the claimed charism of infallibility precludes errors.
Finally, it is a useful idiom do say instead of "inspired", "dictated by the Holy Ghost", but I am only aware of the expression used ex cathedra in Providentissimus Deus:
I was aware of what Providentissimus Deus states, which is why i asked, and thus in essence you were and making no real distinction btwn the Divine inspiration of Scripture and doctors, prelates (popes or including them) in speaking on faith and morals.
you do not even have a list of all infallible teachings
Of course not. This is akin to telling us when Christ will come again: not useful knowledge. Whether formally and canonically binding as dogma or not, any uttering of the Magisterium is to be met with serious attention, and if formulated as definitive, with obedience.
Hardly. The very requirement of obedience to that which is formulated as definitive makes a definitive list of what is definitive useful to say the least. Some way all encyclicals are infallible, others say no; some think Humanae Vitae is infallible, while the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops rejected it; some think some arguments behind infallible statements are infallible, while being uncertain the level of other magisterial teachings, and wonder what constitute "official teaching on many issues.
You exhibit the typical Protestant legalistic thinking that confuses the Holy Church with a police station.
Oh? It is RCs who present Rome as the police station and judge that solves the problem of interpretation, according as they interpret Scripture and Rome.